Hi Jason,
I agree. But remember, I didn't say not to define the term. Just don't
define "user interface elements" as only being input. That's all.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Jason White
Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 12:08 AM
To: Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'Loretta Guarino Reid'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for 4.2, Ensure that user interfaces are accessible
Gregg Vanderheiden writes:
> Right. But it is simpler than that.
>
> As per previous post - we can just say "user input interface elements"
(or > components). Or some such.
The problem with this is that it merely reiterates the definitional issue at
another level: which elements are "user interface elements/components" and
which are not? If we don't provide a definition and leave this to the
intuition of developers, I predict it will give rise to interpretive
difficulties in applying the guidelines as soon as people start to disagree
over which elements require role/state information. This will lead naturally
to the question of whether something is a user interface component, and
without a clear criterion, we run the risk of differing interpretations.
This is why I tried to specify in more concrete terms which components of
Web content are meant to have role/label/state/value information.
If there is a strong reason to believe that no definition is needed and that
"user interface component" (or whatever) is clear enough by itself, then we
can leave it at that; but I suspect that without a good definition there
will be too much scope for disagreement.